You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Magazine Ammo Limits

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2011, 12:06 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
canebrake's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 150 miles NE of Sloppy Joe's Bar
Posts: 21,941
Liked 1484 Times on 825 Posts
Likes Given: 1290

Default Magazine Ammo Limits

Magazine Ammo Limits

Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America / Bloomfield Press

The lamestream media told you:
30-round magazines are too dangerous for the public to have. There is no legitimate use for large magazines. If this Tucson murderer had smaller magazines he would have done less damage. Magazines over ten rounds should be outlawed. Banning magazines over ten rounds will make you safer, even if the New York Times said, after the last magazine-size ban, that it had no impact on crime whatsoever. Just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it again. Anyone can see that small magazines make you safe.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The 30-round magazine debate misses a key point.

Depriving the public of gear as a way to stop murderers is misguided because it cannot work. It puts you at risk, and at its core, is a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines -- in the false and dangerous belief that disarming innocent people will finally disarm criminals.

Talking points for the 30-round firearm-magazine-size debate

Several legislators (state and federal) asked me for talking points
so when they face the media on the latest anti-gun-rights barrage
they have clear, cogent, common-sense responses. This is my reply
to their requests.

The Crux
By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shooters
you jeopardize everyone's safety.

Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic.

Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two?

Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense.

Would you make police obey the same limit? Why not? This is key.

Parity with Police:
The public faces the same criminals police do.
Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use.
The public is always first at the scene.

If you can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits,
you cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way.

What's needed to stop rampages is not another law written on paper,
but speedier law enforcement, or any armed people who can respond.

A criminal can't have a magazine of any size. A law restricting size adds nothing.
None of these arguments matter.
People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll,
using the Tucson assassinations for momentum.
They want any kind of gun bans they can get, regardless
of crime fighting, public safety, logic or reason.
Magazine size is merely the soup du jour.
They are emotionally compromised.

Limiting the amount of ammunition a person has for self defense is dangerous.
Standard magazines in modern pistols like the police use hold 17 rounds or more.

The only way to stop a lethal attack is with countervailing force.

The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public,
but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible.

People are always the first responders.
Police are second responders.
We face the same criminals.
We both need the best tools we can get.

We know that laws banning murder and armed criminals don't stop criminals.
Why would you want to do more of the same when you know it doesn't work?
(Because it's a hoplophobic response, not a rational one.)

An infringed-capacity magazine violates your civil rights.

Confiscating or banning normal magazines you already own
is a direct violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Infringing on the size of a magazine doesn't stop crazy people.
Imagining that it somehow will, now that's crazy.
Will magazine-size bans feel good, as if you're really doing something? Yes.

Will they actually do something? No.

Will a magazine limit stop a murderer from carrying several guns? Of course not.

Will it prevent swapping out magazines? How do you propose controlling that?

Infringing on magazine size has no effect on the millions of magazines already out there.

Limiting the public doesn't limit criminals. It just limits the public.

Trying to stop crime or crazy people by limiting magazine size can't work.
In fact, we tried that, for ten years under president Clinton's size ban.
It's a proven failure. The NY Times admitted this.
New York Times Describes Bogus Reports.

Resurrecting a proven failure reveals that the magazine-size debate
is about bans, not about public safety.

The public should have at least as much ammunition as police can have.

Because people face the same criminals police do,
we have an honest need for equal gear.

Attacking the right to an uninfringed magazine because of one assassin
is a political game, not a meaningful solution to homicidal rampages.

Using a tragic homicidal assault for leverage against civil rights is reprehensible.

Using tragedy to advance a political agenda
aimed at incrementally disarming the public
is the ugliest underbelly of politics. It's shameful.
Killing Is Fun!
Someone has to say it --
With constant Technicolor promotion of “the thrill of killing”
from Hollywood and TV, we can expect another homicidal rampage.
We must be ready to stop it when it inevitably occurs.

They're not deranged, they're imitating --
With Hollywood and the networks glorifying immoral behavior,
portraying killers as heroes to be emulated, and mourned when put down,
it's false to classify copycat crimes or killing sprees as mental disease.

The proper response to the recognition that people can go berserk
and cause mayhem is to foster a culture of marksmanship.

From army posts to grocery stores, homicidal attacks take place
in make-believe gun free zones. Paper signs do not deter murderers.

A phony gun-free zone made by posting a sign may feel good,
but it has been repeatedly proven to be extremely dangerous and negligent.

A person who posts a no-guns-allowed sign should be liable
if it causes any harm. See the model legislation at - Gun Free Zone Bill and Review

Murderous carnage has nothing to do with magazine size
and everything to do with opportunity. Crowds of unarmed people
offer murderers a field day.

If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any.

Laws do not stop crime.
Law enforcement stops crime.

Politically Corrected Glossary

Always frame the debate as pro rights vs. anti rights,
never as pro gun vs. anti gun, which yields ground to the antis.

This is a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights.

Always talk about discreet carry, a cultural and civilized norm,
never about concealed carry, which sounds like you have something to hide.

Always refer to personal sidearms, a neutral and non-inflammatory term,
never to handguns, a word that has been vilified beyond usefulness.

Remember that assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.
The media loves that word because it spins the debate to their liking,
and makes firearms automatically bad, instead of true focus on bad actors.
Assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware.

Always ask a person who questions assault-weapon possession
what guns they're talking about exactly. They do not know.

Any weapon you can own is an ordinary household firearm,
the type you might find in any American household.

Don't waste time and audience attention correcting ignorant reporters
who talk about clips or bullets. Let them remain self-evidently ignorant.

See the entire Glossary at

Get her dirty, then clean her so she starts to respect you. When her trust is complete, she will serve you well for a lifetime!

"...if doves shot back, there wouldn't be a need for a bag limit."
- orangello

Last edited by canebrake; 02-21-2011 at 12:10 AM.
canebrake is offline  
Reply With Quote

Join Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join Today! - Click Here

Old 02-21-2011, 02:28 AM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
gregs887's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Moorpark,CA
Posts: 1,547
Liked 43 Times on 33 Posts
Likes Given: 137


Excellent post, I especially liked this quote.
Originally Posted by canebrake View Post

If legislation really could stop criminals there wouldn't be any.

Laws do not stop crime.
Law enforcement stops crime.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.”

"Never underestimate the predictability of stupid"
gregs887 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 02:36 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
CA357's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 19,871
Liked 1180 Times on 515 Posts
Likes Given: 2978


Very well thought out. Thanks.

As long as they're banning things, they need to ban paper because it makes those nasty paper cuts.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”Samuel Adams
CA357 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 02:37 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
dnthmn2004's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Do you see what happens,Larry?!
Posts: 3,317
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts


Good read. Maybe some politicians in MA should read the augmentative points. Then I wouldn't have to pay $25 for pre-ban mags.

dnthmn2004 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 02:40 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Polygon's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 845
Liked 72 Times on 55 Posts
Likes Given: 119


Well, the issue isn't banning them. The issue is making them unavailing to anyone, including criminals. Otherwise they're just wasting time. I agree that there is no need for the public to have access to a 30 round magazine. Banning things doesn't solve anything.

Great thread!
Polygon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 02:56 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
JonM's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 20,139
Liked 7708 Times on 4107 Posts
Likes Given: 630


the public has more right to high capacity magazines than the military or police does.
"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

"I crapped my pants to avoid the draft!!" -Ted Nugent
JonM is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 04:07 AM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
dunerunner's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florence, Oregon
Posts: 8,480
Liked 36 Times on 26 Posts
Likes Given: 4


Well done Cane!! A well thought out response, as usual. Thank you for posting it.
People get the government they deserve.
dunerunner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 11:38 AM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
spittinfire's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Maiden,NC
Posts: 9,663
Liked 88 Times on 58 Posts
Likes Given: 5


Great post!
If the pain is lacking so is the discipline...

"the only 911 call I need is chambering a round" - Mr. Muller, MO car dealer
spittinfire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 12:04 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
c3shooter's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 21,312
Liked 16488 Times on 6797 Posts
Likes Given: 2696


a thinly disguised effort to get to zero-round magazines
As the man said, gun control ain't about guns.
It IS about control.

Some years back, a State representative introduced a law baning anti-tank guns here in VA. So...... what's not to love? Just a common sense thing, right? Hell, nobody NEEDS and anti-tank gun- right?

Problem- bill defined anti-tank gun as "capable of firing a round of ammunition that will penetrate an armored vehicle." Okay...........but failed to define "armored vehicle". Oh, say, there's one over there- an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier. Aluminum armor. Intended to stop artillery, mortar, and grenade fragments- not direct fire weapons. Standard military rifle loaded with AP bullets will zip right thru it.

Now, could we have a word about your anti-tank rifle? All of you that own a .308, 30-06, 8mm Mauser, Moisin-Nagant, SMLE, or Arisaka, line up over on the left.

We'll be back for the rest later.
What we have here is... failure- to communicate.
c3shooter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 12:07 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Car54's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sun, Sand, and Palm Trees,Fla.
Posts: 2,114
Liked 109 Times on 46 Posts
Likes Given: 6


Good read, thanks for posting it Cane.
"As an American, I was not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials"...Newt Gingrich

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Car54 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Slide locks back with ammo still in magazine Lyndo Semi-Auto Handguns 7 08-03-2010 03:46 PM
Off limits NGIB Politics, Religion and Controversy 27 06-22-2010 01:29 PM
Judge upholds limits on DC gun ownership bkt Legal and Activism 13 03-29-2010 11:01 AM
Limits on what caliber/ammo type a gun can fire? generic Ammunition & Reloading 23 01-03-2010 02:27 PM
Great reason for term limits funnyrunner Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 11-07-2009 06:57 AM